Friday, July 29, 2011

I remember the first time I heard of Tony Genco, when his name was floated to take on Julian Fantino in Vaughan. I immediately did some research, wasn't particularly impressed at all and I made that view known on twitter. Genco screamed lightweight, looked nothing more than a convenient hack, but after initial questioning, I tried to look at the bigger picture and shut my yap. I mention this now, so nowhere accuses me of convenient criticism, now that Genco is the standard bearer for these anything but "Progressive" Conservatives in Ontario.

Oh, we had such fun when Genco first endorsed Fantino in the last election. Personally, I retweeted many of his comical attacks on Fantino, which served to expose the duplicity of a man who really stands for JACK SHIT, his words hollow, simply bitter because Liberals came to their senses and realized he was a second rate, perennial loser candidate. The lesson of Tony Genco is one Liberals need to heed in the future, we need people of character and conviction, not second rate mercenaries that lack integrity.

That Genco is now running under Hudak's banner, against his former "mentor", cements his BUFFOON status, almost unrivaled in recent memory. Honestly, how can someone pivot so profoundly? No one can claim that the looming Ontario election lacks distinctions, clear philosphical departures, between the two main parties. Genco has moved to a hard right expression, which again highlights a man who really stands for nothing, apart from political convenience. I remain confident that the people of Vaughan won't reward such duplicity and lack of principled candidacy. Who is the real Tony Genco, nobody can be sure?

A lesson for Liberals moving forward, like any "team" character and integrity our chief want. On the plus side, Tony Genco now runs for the Progressive Conservatives, what a COUP for Tim Hudak, having the biggest buffoon in Canadian politics by your side, symbolizing all that is wrong with the modern, disingenious politican. He's all yours guys, and I suspect his perfect record remains in tact!

Thursday, July 28, 2011

This type of story rarely resonates with anyone, other than die hard political observers. I believe the Conservatives also know "suppressing science" stories rarely resonates with anyone, which explains why they continually do it and largely get away with this behaviour. However, this salmon story provides the quintessential example of why many of us fear and loathe this government, why we are continually alarmed by their mandate, why we worry about the damage they do to our institutions, operating more like a totalitarian regime than a modern democratic entity:

Kristi Miller, who heads a salmon-genetics project at the federal Pacific Biological Station on Vancouver Island, has linked plummeting salmon stocks in British Columbia's Fraser River to a virus that is found in farmed salmon. She has complained about being kept from a workshop because her managers feared not being able to control the way the disease issue was "construed in the press." She has also been prevented from talking to reporters about her findings, even after her work was published in the prestigious journal Science earlier this year.

The federal government does itself no favours, nor does it help the iconic West Coast salmon stocks, with this kind of political meddling around important work done by taxpayer funded scientists. It is also demoralizing to other scientists and researchers on whose work numerous government departments depend.

It is not the job of government to stifle debate and evidence because of optical concerns. "Construed" by the press equates to preventing the PUBLIC from getting information, understanding the facts at hand, grasping the situation. Miller's findings have potentially enormous consequences, a full airing is not only required but essential. That the Conservatives are once again micro-managing scientific inquiry is unprecedented and downright alarming. Unfortunately, this practice is now so commonplace- the air of intimidation and "over the shoulder" paranoia- that with each successive example, the reaction is less surprising, we are actually incorporating this outlandish behaviour as somehow NORMAL standard operating procedure.

The DRIFT is now almost accepted, stories about evidence suppression solicit a few responses, but largely rendered to the "oh this is how the Conservatives do it" file and we all move on. Public servants have learned the new reality, only a fool dares to pop their head up for fear of reprisal, the "chill" now fully understood and largely incorporated. Now operating like a dysfunctional family, only a detached perspective can see the unhealthy environment.

Conservatives have politicized science, amazingly how one views empirical evidence is now a subjective exercise, dependent on political bent. We once embraced a fact based society, now formerly accepted objectivity has been tainted and bastardized by those with political agendas. An incredible development, even moreso when one understands the decay largely lead by completely unqualified, ignorant voices.

In an open society, all evidence is decimated and debated, decisions are then made after a full airing. When a government unilaterally decides what seemingly objective information can be discussed openly, it is in a sense playing god, it is arbitrarily and selectively manipulating the public. This new reality betrays core tenets of our society, effectively "spinning" scientific inquiry. Outrageous, offensive, offside, but sadly, par for the course in today's Canada.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

First off, I've always liked and respected Sheila Copps. Also, in a open and democratic party obviously anyone who wants to, can and should, put their name forward for positions within the Liberal Party. With these disclaimers out of the way, I think it sheer madness to even entertain the possibility of Sheila Copps as next Liberal Party President.

Reading the article on Copps' potential run, I'm struck by, "I’ve been approached". One can only wonder who has done the approaching, and frankly what motives are behind such suggestion. Naturally, the mind drifts back to the OLD battles, the OLD alliances, the OLD divisions, because fair or not, Sheila Copps is part of that unseemly history. I can't possibly IMAGINE a less productive development than introducing a candidacy which reopens those wounds, encourages some, alienates others, just the same old BULLSHIT that has brought us to this point. Again, I like Copps in an isolated sense, but that's a fairytale reality, she represents the past, brings little to the idea of forward thinking reform, not to mention a changing of the bloody guard which is JOB ONE here.

I'm hearing lots of talk about reform, but the trouble is much of it coming from institutionalized Liberals. We need new voices, fresh perspectives, NO BAGGAGE, no past bias or thoughts of reclaiming long gone influences. The Liberal Party isn't dead, but the Liberal Party as we knew it sure as shit is, and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.

It's fantastic that Sheila Copps wants to pitch in, nobody is naive enough to believe we can't benefit from the wisdom that only experience provides. However, I'm quite certain that the Liberal Party will become a historical artificat if it puts the past center stage, if it relies on old faces and past glories to reinvent itself. The renewal process simply doesn't work if people see the same old same old, we need fresh blood, a new generation, this realization is vital and sober. Frankly, the people that are suggesting Copps, I question their grasp of reality, which makes me curious as to true motivations. And, I'm sure I'm not alone in that curiousity, which makes the prospects even more unattractive. The last thing the Liberals need is one second wasted on past divisions, nor a candidacy which puts off anyone, sidelines a camp, encourages another, unproductive and really, really unnecessary.

The optics here are dreadful, no matter how much anyone admires or respects Copps. Someone needs to punch the rearview mirror from this wreck once and for all.

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

The NDP on the edge, their very survival now in question, according to the exaggerated, incredibly superficial "analysis" coming out in the wake of Layton's announcement. I say BULLOCKS to all of it, and I say it as a Liberal. Why must we wildly overstate a situation with some many variables, so many moving parts, particularly in such short order? I'm prepared to give the NDP a little more credit than what I'm hearing spewed out this morning.

No one doubts the popularity of Jack Layton, nor the fact the NDP has made his personal image synonymous with the brand. Should Layton not return, there are obvious uncertainties, the NDP will have to retool their message and rework their presentation. However, to elevate this issue to the point of outright crisis, I think it does the NDP a bit of a disservice to be honest.

To my mind, the NDP are an established brand in English Canada, so "fallout" has potentially less consequence. The real question revolves around Quebec, that is where Layton's popularity had an enormous effect. However, if you must think about potential contenders, the most obvious name is hardly a question of "survival" in Quebec, very popular, very entrenched, very capable of holding these gains. The NDP have obliterated the Bloc, the province isn't going back, so assuming without Layton the party falls to nowhere, fails to incorporate the emerging new realities. The NDP party hierarchy have already shown their intentions in the election aftermath, it's all about shoring up support, turning the watery wave into firm concrete, this continues with or without Layton, people don't give up when faced with new challenges. As WELL, let's not forget the underlying appeal, the NDP policies are very, very compatible with Quebecers, their chief hurdle was always appearing a true contender, being taken seriously. With the overwhelming result of the last election, the NDP are now a practicality in Quebec, they've overcome the credibility hurdle, so thoughts of them simply disappearing in short order, I don't understand at all.

Let's assume Layton doesn't return (hope I'm wrong). People wondering if the party can survive make certain assumptions. One, there is simply no one who is capable of providing solid leadership after Jack Layton. Two, the party really has no resonance beyond leadership, their policies are irrelevant, all the messaging an afterthought, take away Layton and everything evaporates. Three, the NDP have a team with no capabilities, they played no role in cultivating Layton's image, arming him with cutting edge ads and narratives. Four, all these new NDP MP's can't shine, they can't show Quebecers their trust was earned, they can't grow in the next four years. Believe me, I understand the role of leadership in success(and I think we Liberals really do need a saviour, despite thoughts to the contrary), but to hear much of the talk today, you have to possess a pretty narrow, static gaze to comprehend the dire potentials. Again, the superficial assessments are actually a bit insulting, perhaps an underlying valid point, but failing to incorporate the pragmatic capacity. The NDP will face challenges, but in many regards they will control their own fate. Should the NDP react with strategic wisdom and solid reasoning, the party will be fine and prosper, should they make boneheaded choices, like all parties they will fail. One thing is clear in Canadian politics, the initial tendency to overstate every development remains a center problem :)

Monday, July 25, 2011

Pretty hard to watch the normally vibrant Jack Layton at today's press conference. Having seen this look before, this appears an extremely serious and sad situation. Like everyone, I wish only the best for Mr. Layton and his family, he's a core warrior in our democratic dance, but beyond that a champion for many ideals we all respect. I'm impressed by his unyielding optimism today, which is probably the primary characteristic of the man. Let's hope the treatment goes well.

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Tragic irony. The teenagers at the socialist youth camp on the Norwegian island who were victims of terror had just demanded that Israel remove the separation fence – the wall – that has saved any number of innocent, Jewish children from Islamic terror gangs. They also condemned Israel for, well, pretty much everything, and showed no empathy at all for Jewish suffering, and the experience of living with terrorism for more than sixty years. So sad, but so typical.

How anyone can pivot from this horrific tragedy and try to score some warped political point, simply amazing and disgusting!

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Sometimes real "change"- not the phony word of political convenience- occurs, of a variety that is hard to completely fathom whilst in the midst. Ontario is smack dab in the middle of a revolution, which future generations will look back on as a key turning point. The fact some readers might not know what I'm talking about, speaks to the fact that you don't always fully realize seismic change until after the fact, until the passage of time allows for a complete perspective. Of course, I'm talking about the Green Energy Act.

It's funny how soon we forget, but despite this very hot summer, again we've seen a relative absence of smog days in Ontario. Last year I noted a similar trend, then reminded myself of the past, wherein smog days- the disgusting brown icon on the weather network- were commonplace, Ontarians almost resigned. All the health concerns, all the potential damage to young lungs, really a crisis that became the norm.

I travel extensively through rural Ontario, and if you've done the same, you'll note the revolution occurring. Contrast what you see with last year, two years ago, and you'll be astounded how quickly the landscape is changing. I remember the novelty of seeing a swath of solar panels on a farm, today you can't travel a side road without seeing renewable energy. It really is an AMAZING development, the pace of change impressive by any measure. What is happening is no accident, it is the real world manifestation of the McGuinty Liberal policies, beyond partisan considerations, a terrific achievement.

Today, I read Suzuki warning of Hudak's back ass plan to undo all the progress, as though we all can actually believe traditional sources of energy won't result in future price hikes. A dangerous fantasy land argument that is utterly irresponsible and opportunistic. Again, travel the side roads of Ontario and you will see the absurdity of wanting to undo all the progress already achieved, it's sheer madness!

I've never been one for glad handing, particularly with leaders, sometimes we tend to give almost rock star reverence. That said, I've made one exception, wherein I proactively sought out a politician to shake his hand and offer a comment. This occurred in 2009, where I walked across a room, waited patiently, so I could tell Dalton McGuinty that I thought his Green Energy Act would be his most important contribution, a positive, progressive legacy that we wouldn't fully comprehend for some time.

If you look at how far we've come already, it is correct to say Hudak's regressive plan is "absolute insanity", as Suzuki argues. Not only is Hudak reckless, regressive and intellectually dishonest, but he puts at risk the new economy that will help sustain Ontario for the future. Hudak's plan is dangerous, his almost nonsensical commitments, just as Ontario is starting to see the theoretical plan move to the practical, it's simply staggering. Hudak spends much time on what people can afford, but if you have the slightest capacity for vision, you'll quickly see Ontario can't AFFORD Tim Hudak.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

People might remember there was a RECENT time, when Canada would host international delegations who wanted to come and see our enviable prison system and policies. The statistics didn't lie, Canada had a progressive system in place that other countries wanted to emulate. With that now former backdrop in mind, quite instructive to read the latest headlines, "Canada's Youth Crime Plans Bewilder International Observers" which demonstrate how far we've fallen under these ideological zealots who have thrown empirical evidence out the window in favour of fear mongering:

If Canada follows through on plans to crack down on miscreant youth, it’ll be one of the few jurisdictions in the world heading in that direction.

And the tough-on-crime approach in the face of contrary evidence is bemusing international observers.

Judges, criminologists and policy-makers in the United States, Britain and Australia – countries whose systems, for the most part, closely resemble Canada’s – can’t figure out why this country is planning to shift toward a jail-intensive approach. Everyone else seems to be doing the opposite, not for ideological reasons, but because evidence shows it works.

Truly embarrassing, a country that once relied on "evidence" has now abandoned any semblance of an advanced society in favour of almost religious zeal, based on nothing but empty philosophical assertion. Also worth nothing, the prior sentence is applicable on a host of files, giving an overall picture of a country heading on a regressive path.

The Conservative crime agenda has never substantiated itself with evidence. When confronted with clear statistics, we here nonsensical things like "non reported crime" or fabrications, or one off stories that are used to solicit fear. As well, there seems no transparency on the costs of this reckless crime agenda, even though we already have evidence of ballooning expenditures, PRIOR to many of these laws manifesting themselves.

For years, Canadians have looked south and largely shaken their heads at the almost primal system of justice, the levels of imprisonment. And yet, we are now in a situation where Americans are looking north wondering what we are doing, moving in the opposition direction. Just as other jurisdictions are waking up to the folly of past policy, we are adopting that failed model. It is truly ASININE and disturbing, and yet saleable because the Conservatives have used electoral ignorance to advantage, sensationalized the real issues to create superficial support. Rather than "good government" we get "good strategy", so there is no political consequence here for what amounts to a completely irresponsible crime agenda.

Canadians will pay a very high price, both literally and figuratively in the coming years, as we truly digest the seismic changes these ideological amateurs have brought. Evidence based policy has been replaced by "we know best" laymen mentalities, and that is a very dangerous development.

Monday, July 18, 2011

Eric lays out the historical picture to demonstrate why the NDP's honeymoon in Quebec may persist longer than Harper's rhetoric assumes. I largely agree with the analysis, but my opinion looks at the NDP circumstance from another perspective, but perhaps equally as daunting for the Liberal "renewal" prospects.

You'll note in the G and M piece, that the examples largely center around one common denominator, that being power. Unlike most "honeymoon" scenarios, the NDP holds no real power, there is no reign, no era, and ultimately no real accountability. In my view, the fact the NDP doesn't hold the levers of power only lessens the chance that they will quickly disappear in Quebec. There are some obvious exceptions, particularly in Quebec, but the NDP are in a very advantageous position in Quebec, they can fight against an unpopular Conservative government, without behing held to any real standard because they reside in opposition. People understand the NDP can't deliver much, given their current role in Parliament, a majority is actually preferrable to the past minorities. With that common sense rationale self evident, I'm hard pressed to see how a "kick the bums out" mentality develops in Quebec?

The only way the NDP collapse in Quebec is if they come across as amateurish and unprofessional. Should the NDP continue to champion Quebec issues- which they've already signalled will be a high priority- then these type of "honeymoon" conversations need to be looked at in a different light. Within a majority Parliament, dominated by another party, there will simply be few occasions wherein the NDP will receive blame that could lead to Quebecers turning in dramatic fashion. In other words, why would the honeymoon end, what issue would trigger a seismic change in Quebec, how can a powerless party so offend its demographic? Of course, NDP support is quite shallow in Quebec, it isn't entrenched, traditional, some deep unshakeable affinity, but it also enjoys probable calm seas ahead due to circumstance. You have a mostly dead in the water Conservative government, a tired and tarnished Liberal Party and a completely decimated separatist option, so Quebec will remain fertile for the NDP, probability assumes this election isn't a one off.

There are no absolutes here, but for Liberals, I think it best not to adopt the flippant mentality that Harper articulated and instead realize that this "honeymoon" scenario has built in advantages that are formidable. At the moment, I'm hard pressed to find any "triggers" that could lead to short term NDP implosion, apart from self inflicted wounds. I'm not suggesting the NDP can't erode, but there is a certain arrogance that assumes they will quickly disappear from the Quebec political scene.

Friday, July 15, 2011

Lawrence Martin is one of the better political writers, but his latest on Justin Trudeau defies logic and incorporates lazy shock value. Political pundits have made a living for YEARS on the never ending Liberal internal soap opera. Much of the documentation justified, although the obsessive nature more about messenger than subject matter in many cases.

In today's piece, Martin details Justin Trudeau's new role within the party, post-apocalypse. A puff piece really, in need of some intrigue! What better then, to float this idea that Bob Rae is purposely giving Trudeau a "low profile" to undercut his leadership ambitions and perhaps help Bob's in the process. The article even finds an anonymous Liberal to wonder aloud, a rare feat indeed. Trouble is, an intellectual of Martin's stature SURELY must have seen the logical absurdity he tries to sell.

A question- if one were trying to derail a rival would it be better to bury him/her in non-descript Parliamentary Committees, followed by NO ONE, or set him loose on the party dime to tour ridings across the country, giving speeches, shaking hands, NETWORKING? This article actually asserts that Rae not putting Trudeau on a Committee, instead wanting him to rally the troops across the country, raise money, give some high profile attention, is evidence of some slight. On the contrary, if Trudeau does have leadership aspirations, Bob Rae has just given him the PLUM gig to help the cause. If anything, fair minded Liberals that want a competitive leadership might cry foul at Justin getting this type if institutional advantage. Again, would you rather be in Ottawa or meeting Liberals across the country, if you want to be the next leader?

I've actually been watching to see which Liberals show up where across the country, as indicative that they might be considering a future run. Oh, there is Martha Hall Findley in Calgary, interesting. Hmmm, there's Mark Holland giving a passionate speech in Alberta, what's he doing there? Not suggesting anything, just that it's funny that one of the clues I'm looking for is a concerted grassroots outreach, people touring the country, and here we have Martin suggesting Trudeau being asked to tour is somehow detrimental to leadership aspirations.

Again, I really enjoy Lawrence Martin, but in this case he falls into the lazy narrative trap, making a tortured argument to try and sell the "division" meme. If I'm Bob Rae and I want to clip Trudeau's wings, I give him two Committee gigs, I bury his desk with process and inside Ottawa machinations. The LAST thing Rae does- if Martin's thesis is remotely accurate- is say "hey Justin, people love you, can you go across Canada and spend your days speaking with the future delegates who will pick he next leader?". Come on now.

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

The Ontario Liberals are taking the gloves off, with a very impressive attack ad. This morning I heard some reaction from the Progressive Conservatives, calling the ad a "sign of desperation". To the contrary, this type of ad is the most effective, because it relies SOLELY on non partisan sourcing to make a compelling case:

I absolutely LOVE the idea of presenting words like "dolts", "chumps", setting it up as though the Progressive Conservatives are insulting us, their platform banks on voters lacking sophistication. People don't like the idea of being taken for fools, this ad is quite clever in that it not only undercuts the Hudak platform, but simultaneously leaves the voter feeling lied to and slighted. The final effective line, a clear connection to the past Mike Harris regime.

Monday, July 11, 2011

Feeling down about the prospects for the nation under a Harper majority? Wondering if progressive forces will be relegated to the sidelines as a new dynasty takes hold on the Canadian scene? Liberals, outdated and marginalized, can we make it back? Thankfully, right on cue, Stephen Harper delivers a "cheer up" speech which we can only hope isn't simple rhetoric, but true CONVICTION:

“Conservative values are Canadian values. Canadian values are conservative values. They always were,” Mr. Harper said. “And Canadians are going back to the party that most closely reflects who they really are: The Conservative Party, which is Canada's party.”

The first sign that you've lost the plot is you get COZY. Harper declares the Liberals historical artifacts, says the NDP are blip on the radar, and that we live in a conservative country, this majority is really just the natural order. I can't blame Conservatives for this sustained "afterglow", this is a triumphant time, but for the rest of us, HOPEFULLY this is the beginning of the cancerous mindset that will lead to decay and detachment. I'm beginning to think that this new attitude isn't just rhetoric, the whole team behind Harper is also developing this almost smug disposition. When you consider the entire Conservative success to date was predicated on a certain humility, this new found arrogance is a welcome development.

The comparison is quickly made, these Conservatives making the same proclamations as previous Liberal manifestations. This comparison is largely relevant, now one disputes that past Liberal arrogance was their chief undoing. One large caveat though, while both parties have achieved similar popular vote totals, the notion that Canada is a conservative country is less rationale an assertion. Yes, 60% of Canadians had voted for parties other than the Liberals, but many of those votes were directed towards NON-conservative forces. In other words, Liberal is different from liberal, one could still make the case that as a country our instincts still fell within that camp, despite minority majority rule. Taken further, even with the Conservatives scoring 40% support in this election, you can see a clear distinction with where the rest of the support lies, very much liberal in orientation.

Harper's assertion that the last election merely represnts Canadians "coming back" to the natural point on the compass is delusional in nature. I remain sceptical Harper actually believes this statement, primarily because his past behaviour has ALWAYS taken the underdog form, up against bigger forces, realizing that these Conservatives had to work harder to overcome structural barriers. If ultimate victory- Harper finally achieving his long held goal- is leading to a new thought process, then the rest of us can quietly hope it's TRUE. The moment these Conservatives take their foot off the pedal and begin comforting themselves with endless back patting, the moment we will see OPPORTUNITY, the moment I begin to sense a soft underbelly.

Eat well Conservatives, look down on your opponents as outdated and nothing more than fads, it is this type of mentality that has brought down almost every single past administration or government in the democratic world. Harper's words, the new found smugness of the minions, for the first time I've found reason for optimism since the election.

Friday, July 08, 2011

A pleasant couple, likable, seemingly sound moral fiber, Will and Kate nothing particularly offensive on a personal level. The point, there are about ten couples on my street who share the same attributes. I have a problem with fawning over celebrities, particularly ones who have no talent or skill which has led to their "status". The Monarchy isn't about merit, it's about who's vagina you exited, or who donated sperm to the cause. It's an ancient system, entirely offensive to the notion of a progressive society, elitist, betraying all tenets of egalitarianism. I don't dislike the Royals on a personal level, but I reject everything that swirls around them.

I will never understand how any feminist can support this Royal presentation. As a role model for women, Kate represents the most superficial qualities. Be seen, not heard, this abysmal tour has produced nothing more than a cute ornament, mostly silent and subservient. Outdated protocols, watching Kate meander through the weight of correctness, it's maddening when you detach emotion from the equation. There is no depth here, no inspiration, apart from naked reverence to celebrity and status. I will not apologize for wanting more, aspiring to place such FEVER to a more deserving productive pursuit.

Escapism is something we all engage in on varying levels. However, this isn't a fiction film, these people actually live a life which shows no relationship to anything real or concrete. This fairy tale perception all the more astounding, given how past incarnations have shown themselves to be very ORDINARY in practice, SURELY the ILLUSION we've moved past? Why do people cry when the meet Kate, she's a person, she's not a god, a deity, she's done nothing of consequence, the reaction is confounding.

Last week I went see a band labelled the "gods of grunge". I cheered, I clapped, I hooted, because I loved the music, but not once did I look at Chris Cornell and feel emotion just to be in his presence. Just some guy with a great voice, but full of warts, no different than anyone in the audience, enjoying his talents, but not entertaining his celebrity.

As a society, if we are to PROGRESS, we have to get beyond worshipping superficial distinctions, we can respect talent without this reverence and obsession. When it comes to the Royals- who's celebrity isn't even hinged on some objective talent or skill- the need to reaccess the fascination all the more demanding. I don't dislike Will and Kate as people, but they are not interesting or compelling. I'm not impressed with their carefully choreographed itinerary, used to maximize personal appeal.

There is absolutely nothing about the Monarchy that has appeal for a modern democratic society. The entity is predicated on so many notions that we've strived to evolve from, as a historical artifact relevant, but part of the future, almost unimaginable from where I sit. I will never look at William as "my king", just the notion causes a gag reflex. I don't need a king, a sovereign to "rule" over me from his throne. I share the historical importance, but at some point a society becomes shackled by its inability to shed tradition. I enjoy going to old historic sites, watching people dressed in traditional garb recreating past realities, it's fascinating and important context. The trouble with today's Royals, it's like one of those tours but the actors never take off the costumes, nor does the audience fully digest it's pretend.

As this tour comes to end, from my perspective, it's more a psychology thesis on celebrity and superficiality, rather some terrific statement on why the Monarchy is still relevant in Canada. People are free to disagree, I respect other perspectives, but from here, this tour can't end soon enough :)